Missile Attack on US ships in Jordan

[G-Man]

Sure, but it is still more technically sophisticated than a Katyusha, regardless of what it's purpose is. And it's not really surprising that they are less sophisticated - it took the US many years to get over the teething troubles and develop a useful UAV, so one would expect the same of any UAV program (or at least one without access to imported components, anyway).

Actually hezzbollah have weapons far superior to katyushas, more advanced and far superior to the UAV.

Meh; anyone impressed by propaganda such as that is at an information disadvantage (not that the target audience isn't already). Having a vastly superior force ignore a very minimal threat and add a buffer distance because of political restraint is hardly a victory. IMO I'd say they pestered the fleet at best, far from chased it away.

On the contrary, it's precisely the victory they wanted. This is why it is a weapon of propoganda rather than of war. Obviously they don't stand a chance to drive an aircraft carrier away, but using such weapons of guerilla warfare they were able to achieve with three katyushas what the entire Jordanian fleet couldn't have achieved in conventional warfare. And the managed to show their audience exactly what they wanted - Al Qaeda sending the Americans away from Arab land.

Well, since the only other option is to launch an artillery barrage on the coordinates the mortar came from, I dont see what else they could do.

Obviously the Americans didn't have many other options, other than staying in place (which considering the little threat these rockets are, might've been a better option). But this is still to the credit of the guerillas - they took the initiative and managed to execute their attack. And the Americans lost in this propoganda battle not because of what they did after the attacks, but because of what they and their allies didn't do before them.

not true, if they had landed, say 10-20 rockets on deck, there wouldve been carnage

Do you know the size of this area? It's quite a large area in the red see in which ships are docked. You'd need to launch hundreds if not thousands of katyushas in order to make 20 hits.

 

[Jawz II]

well i dont which range the attack was carried out from, but judging from that picture, id say at 1km, or closer theyd have great accuracy

now hitting the actual deck itself would be hard, but the superstructure would be easier to hit

at 10 km, they would have to fire hundreds, maybe a thousand, that is how artillery works

 

[Nobody]

Atleast there going after military targets

 

[IglooDame]

not true, if they had landed, say 10-20 rockets on deck, there wouldve been carnage

Doubtful. These aren't armor-piercing rounds, and ships have (by land warfare standards, anyway) adequate steel outer walls/roofs/hulls enough to at least cause the blast to be on the outside skin of the ship. The article doesn't say if they were running tours or not (I'm guessing not, given the port) but on your average day there aren't many sailors hanging around topside.

Personally, I think they should have stayed inport.

 

[Winterfell]

Atleast there going after military targets

They are not. They also launched one of the katyushas to the airport in the city Eilat, in south of israel, which happens to be my hometown. It hit a car but luckily didn't explode so noone got harmed. But that is definitley a civil target.

 

[Jawz II]

Doubtful. These aren't armor-piercing rounds, and ships have (by land warfare standards, anyway) adequate steel outer walls/roofs/hulls enough to at least cause the blast to be on the outside skin of the ship. The article doesn't say if they were running tours or not (I'm guessing not, given the port) but on your average day there aren't many sailors hanging around topside.

Personally, I think they should have stayed inport.

aaah, doubt no more my navy friend, a 130mm has a 3KG warhead, the regular kind isnt armour piercing true, and even if it was i doubt it would peneterate the hull of most navy ships (im guessing here, i have no idea how thick a hull that helicopter carrying one has for example)
i know battleships have really really thick hulls

but, at point blank range such as seen in the picture, they could shoot at the superstructure, with millions of dollars worth electronic gadget, can you think of a single thing there that would react well to 3KG HE?

or maybe even hit the captains room (bridge? i dunno..)


there could be secondary explosions if they were to hit one of the choppers up there, there would be shrapnel raining down on the people on deck

of course the chances of sinking a big ship like that with small rockets is 1 to a gajilion, but you could do millions of dollars damage, kill and wound people onboard and take the ship out of action for a while

i saw a documentary on discovery about an incident onboard a us navy carrier, during the vietnam war that was caused by some kind of electrical malfunction, where 1 A-4 (sky hawk? sky raider?) accidentally fired a missile, sidewinder i think, and hit another A-4 containing then pilot, now big shot politician, whatshisface! (whats his name that republican guy that was in hanoi hilton a few years, john something)

the guy jumped out of the plane faster than hell, his co pilot, not as fast, didnt make it!

air plane went up, took out several other planes, huge fire and at the end of the day many sailors were dead, more wounded and the carrier had to be repaired for months

all that was caused by 1 sidewinder!
i know many things are diffrent now compared to then, but remember, many things arent!

 

[frekk]

of course the chances of sinking a big ship like that with small rockets is 1 to a gajilion, but you could do millions of dollars damage, kill and wound people onboard and take the ship out of action for a while

Sure, but military objectives are rarely "break as much stuff as you can". In this case the objective was a propaganda objectives, "make the American ships leave and make sure everyone sees them go." As a propaganda form, it is not necessarily even desirable to do more damage than is absolutely necessary ...

 

[cidknee]

well I agree that there could have been carnage on deck if they would have hit either a chopper, a ammo buggy or if there was fueling happening, but those arent usually done in port.

I kinda have to laugh at the americans. I know they want to keep thier men and woemen secure but cmon, 3 missiles?...Although it could be a prelude to something bigger. So i guess that was a good idea to leave port. As far as range on those missiles goes? Not very far. IIRC not more than 12 miles. Thats not that far for a truck launched missile.. Im not totally sure though. But look at this pic, and u tell me, that really wouldnt have hurt a ship at all......least not unless u hit in any of the places I mentioned earlier or where Jawz II mentioned....

 

[IglooDame]

aaah, doubt no more my navy friend, a 130mm has a 3KG warhead, the regular kind isnt armour piercing true, and even if it was i doubt it would peneterate the hull of most navy ships (im guessing here, i have no idea how thick a hull that helicopter carrying one has for example)
i know battleships have really really thick hulls

but, at point blank range such as seen in the picture, they could shoot at the superstructure, with millions of dollars worth electronic gadget, can you think of a single thing there that would react well to 3KG HE?

or maybe even hit the captains room (bridge? i dunno..)


there could be secondary explosions if they were to hit one of the choppers up there, there would be shrapnel raining down on the people on deck

of course the chances of sinking a big ship like that with small rockets is 1 to a gajilion, but you could do millions of dollars damage, kill and wound people onboard and take the ship out of action for a while

i saw a documentary on discovery about an incident onboard a us navy carrier, during the vietnam war that was caused by some kind of electrical malfunction, where 1 A-4 (sky hawk? sky raider?) accidentally fired a missile, sidewinder i think, and hit another A-4 containing then pilot, now big shot politician, whatshisface! (whats his name that republican guy that was in hanoi hilton a few years, john something)

the guy jumped out of the plane faster than hell, his co pilot, not as fast, didnt make it!

air plane went up, took out several other planes, huge fire and at the end of the day many sailors were dead, more wounded and the carrier had to be repaired for months

all that was caused by 1 sidewinder!
i know many things are diffrent now compared to then, but remember, many things arent!

You're referring to the USS Forestfire video. That video footage is standard damage-control training film for surface ships nowadays, and I've seen it several time myself. (And yeah, the Zuni rocket hit Senator John McCain's A-4.)

Forrestal arrived on Yankee Station on July 25 and immediately began combat operations, her aircraft flying 150 sorties during the next 4 days, without the loss of a single aircraft. At 10:52 A.M. on July 29, the second launch was being readied when a Zuni rocket accidentally fired from an F-4 Phantom parked on the starboard side of the flight deck aft of the island. The missile streaked across the deck into a 400 gallon belly fuel tank on a parked A-4D Skyhawk. The ruptured tank spew highly flammable JP-5 fuel onto the deck which ignited spreading flames over the flight deck under other fully loaded aircraft ready for launch. The ensuing fire caused ordinance to explode and other rockets to ignite. Spread by the wind, the flames engulfed the aft end of the stricken ship turning the flight deck into a blazing inferno.. Berthing spaces immediately below the flight deck became death traps for fifty men, while other crewmen were blown overboard by the explosion.

Point being, having a massive fire break out on a carrier flight deck flying combat operations (in 1967) is one thing, having a massive fire break out on a carrier flight deck that is on semi-peacetime inport routine (in 2005) is quite another. Can an artillery rocket score a lucky hit on some electronics or maybe the ready helo? Sure. Is it likely when they can't even hit the ship at all? Nope.

It is estimated that USS Cole was hit by 400-700lbs (180-320kg) of C4, possibly shaped to maximise the blast damage. 6lbs of explosive isn't anything to sneeze at, but it has pretty much zero chance of doing significant damage to the amphibs in Aqaba.

 

[Jawz II]

ok, again i have no idea how far from port and from land the ship was when it happened, or even which kind of rockets they were firing.

anyway, of course things are diffrent now, on a chopper platform than they were on a carrier then, which i said, but i didnt want to get into details.

example, planes have bombs, more fuel, more rockets, they were tightly packed, because they were flying sorties, there are diffrent procedures now than then etc etc

but a ship is still a floating tin can full of people, fuel and electronics, how much damage you do basicly depends on how lucky you are, and what your definition of "significant damage" is!
again as i said it would be next to impossible to sink that huge ship with 130mm rockets, and you would have to be really lucky to make a mess as big as the USS Forestfire incident.

btw, hitting a huge ship like that wouldnt be that hard, specially at close range
at longer range, it would be harder, but remember the thing is big as a football field, maybe 2! and its really tall!
if they were that inaccurate they would be useless, rockets cost money!
so when you say "not impossible to hit" i say youre underestimating soviet made rocket artillery (as long as the operators know what they theyre doing)

 

[Jawz II]

well I agree that there could have been carnage on deck if they would have hit either a chopper, a ammo buggy or if there was fueling happening, but those arent usually done in port.

I kinda have to laugh at the americans. I know they want to keep thier men and woemen secure but cmon, 3 missiles?...Although it could be a prelude to something bigger. So i guess that was a good idea to leave port. As far as range on those missiles goes? Not very far. IIRC not more than 12 miles. Thats not that far for a truck launched missile.. Im not totally sure though. But look at this pic, and u tell me, that really wouldnt have hurt a ship at all......least not unless u hit in any of the places I mentioned earlier or where Jawz II mentioned....

actually i "remembered" 130mms range to be 12 kilometers, but i checked it today on www.fas.org and it said 10 KM

maybe the info there is dated, or maybe were all wrong!

 

[Jawz II]

Sure, but military objectives are rarely "break as much stuff as you can". In this case the objective was a propaganda objectives, "make the American ships leave and make sure everyone sees them go." As a propaganda form, it is not necessarily even desirable to do more damage than is absolutely necessary ...

guerilla warfare is about exactly that.

how much stuff (and personnel if your lucky) you can destroy before you run away!

 

[frekk]

guerilla warfare is about exactly that.

how much stuff (and personnel if your lucky) you can destroy before you run away!

This isn't true for guerrilla warfare anymore than it is true for conventional warfare. The goal of warfare is not to break things and kill for the sake of breaking things and killing. It is to wear down the enemy's will to resist. If breaking things and killing people achieves this, then it is done, but only as a means to the end. Victory can be achieved in other ways (for instance, Germany shipping Lenin to Russia in WW1). Sometimes, it is even beneficial to goad the enemy into breaking your stuff and killing your people (for instance, the struggle for independance in India).

I'll give you another example of why what you say is not true. Suppose you are at war. You have the choice between seizing control the enemy's most important city, where he currently has very few assets, or going in another direction to attack his main army, which is somewhere out in the middle of nowhere. Which do you choose? Because objectives are the goal, and not "breaking stuff", you go for the city. The only real time what you say is true is in a war conducted by racial supremacists, whose goal is to kill all of the enemy (it is not simply a means to an end, in this case, it is the purpose).

 

[IglooDame]

ok, again i have no idea how far from port and from land the ship was when it happened, or even which kind of rockets they were firing.

anyway, of course things are diffrent now, on a chopper platform than they were on a carrier then, which i said, but i didnt want to get into details.

example, planes have bombs, more fuel, more rockets, they were tightly packed, because they were flying sorties, there are diffrent procedures now than then etc etc

but a ship is still a floating tin can full of people, fuel and electronics, how much damage you do basicly depends on how lucky you are, and what your definition of "significant damage" is!
again as i said it would be next to impossible to sink that huge ship with 130mm rockets, and you would have to be really lucky to make a mess as big as the USS Forestfire incident.

btw, hitting a huge ship like that wouldnt be that hard, specially at close range
at longer range, it would be harder, but remember the thing is big as a football field, maybe 2! and its really tall!
if they were that inaccurate they would be useless, rockets cost money!
so when you "not impossible to hit" i say youre underestimating soviet made rocket artillery (as long as the operators know what they theyre doing)

The ship was inport in Aqaba, pierside, when attacked. I guess it is harder to hit than the operators thought.

And aside from a very lucky hit, I'm talking about superficial damage - maybe a crewman or two killed, zero impact on the ship's warfighting capability.

 

[Jawz II]

This isn't true for guerrilla warfare anymore than it is true for conventional warfare. The goal of warfare is not to break things and kill for the sake of breaking things and killing. It is to wear down the enemy's will to resist. If breaking things and killing people achieves this, then it is done, but only as a means to the end. Victory can be achieved in other ways (for instance, Germany shipping Lenin to Russia in WW1). Sometimes, it is even beneficial to goad the enemy into breaking your stuff and killing your people (for instance, the struggle for independance in India).

I'll give you another example of why what you say is not true. Suppose you are at war. You have the choice between seizing control the enemy's most important city, where he currently has very few assets, or going in another direction to attack his main army, which is somewhere out in the middle of nowhere. Which do you choose? Because objectives are the goal, and not "breaking stuff", you go for the city. The only real time what you say is true is in a war conducted by racial supremacists, whose goal is to kill all of the enemy (it is not simply a means to an end, in this case, it is the purpose).

its called sabotage and its a very important part of guerilla warfare
guerilla warfare is not about breaking anyones will to resisit as much as its about breaking their ass

im kind of in a hurry right now, so to be continued...!

 

[frekk]

its called sabotage and its a very important part of guerilla warfare
guerilla warfare is not about breaking anyones will to resisit as much as its about breaking their ass

You might make a good soldier ... but you'd make an awful general!

It's that kind of thinking that got the US into trouble in Iraq - thinking that there's nothing more to victory in war than killing and destroying. Remember "Mission Accomplished"?

 

[Jawz II]

obviously the US isnt using guerilla tactics in iraq, the insurgent are doing that, hence all the problems theyre giving the US.

i can describe guerilla warfare with 3 words: hit and run!
sabotage is exactly that, only easier, since objects you want to destroy dont shoot back, enemy soldiers do!

the insurgents in iraq are blowing up telecommunication stuff, oil pipelines, water pipes, you name it.
anything thats gonna cost your enemy money to replace, is a good idea to destroy.

"The goal of warfare is not to break things and kill for the sake of breaking things and killing. It is to wear down the enemy's will to resist."

that is indeed your goal in any conflict of any kind, and the best way to achive that, usually is breaking their stuff and killing their soldiers.

sure there are many political ways to end conflincts, but talking outside politics, from a purely military point of view, its never good to have the enemy destroy your stuff. ever.

and about your scenario with the city and the enemy army, there are so many factors and details to be considered, and in many times, the right thing would be to engage the enemy army than taking the city, it entirely depends on many many variables that you havent provided, so i cant really say what the right thing to do would be.

 

[Jawz II]

The ship was inport in Aqaba, pierside, when attacked. I guess it is harder to hit than the operators thought.

And aside from a very lucky hit, I'm talking about superficial damage - maybe a crewman or two killed, zero impact on the ship's warfighting capability.

obviously the guys carrying out the attack didnt have enought rockets, as i said in my first post in this thread, 3 rockets wont do much damage

and most likely they didnt have a proper laucher, even if they did have real 130mm rockets (as opposed to those home-made rockets palestinians make)
and im guessing they didnt have proper training with the weapon

besides, obviously it was carried out for political reasons



do you think 10-20 rockets would cause that little damage? *shrugs*

 

[IglooDame]

obviously the guys carrying out the attack didnt have enought rockets, as i said in my first post in this thread, 3 rockets wont do much damage

and most likely they didnt have a proper laucher, even if they did have real 130mm rockets (as opposed to those home-made rockets palestinians make)
and im guessing they didnt have proper training with the weapon

besides, obviously it was carried out for political reasons

do you think 10-20 rockets would cause that little damage? *shrugs*

I think 10-20 rockets would cause a lot more superficial damage, yeah. Think of it like firing a standard infantry rifle at a tank. Three or four rounds, no big deal (though the tank crew will take note). Ten or twenty, you might break something, but probably not. You empty a few 30-round magazine into the tank, you might start getting somewhere.

 

[Jawz II]

well, we will have to disagree on that one then